On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:43 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:43 PM Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add the register specifier description for an > > optional gamma LUT address. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop.txt | 10 +++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip- > > vop.txt > > index 4f58c5a2d195..97ad78cc7e03 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/rockchip/rockchip-vop.txt > > @@ -20,6 +20,13 @@ Required properties: > > "rockchip,rk3228-vop"; > > "rockchip,rk3328-vop"; > > > > +- reg: Must contain one entry corresponding to the base address and length > > + of the register space. Can optionally contain a second entry > > + corresponding to the CRTC gamma LUT address. > > + > > +- reg-names: "base" for the base register space. If present, the CRTC > > + gamma LUT name should be "lut". > > As per Rob Herring, current suggestion is to avoid reg-names when > possible. The code should just look for the presence of a 2nd entry > and assume that if it's there that it's the lut range. Full context: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAL_Jsq+MMunmVWqeW9v2RyzsMKP+=kMzeTHNMG4JDHM7Fy0HBg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Oh, that's news to me. I was assuming having reg-names was preferred. Thanks for the feedback, I'll send a new version.
